BLOOMINGTON NONPROFITS: SCOPE AND DIMENSIONS

Transcription

1

2 NONPROFIT SURVEY SERIES COMMUNITY REPORT #1 BLOOMINGTON NONPROFITS: SCOPE AND DIMENSIONS A JOINT PRODUCT OF THE CENTER ON PHILANTHROPY AT INDIANA UNIVERSITY AND THE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC & ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AT INDIANA UNIVERSITY DECEMBER 2005 KIRSTEN A. GRØNBJERG, AND PATRICIA BORNTRAGER TENNEN

3 Copyright 2005 Kirsten A. Grønbjerg All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Acknowledgments We express our deep-felt gratitude to the many Indiana nonprofits that completed our survey. Without their cooperation, we would have nothing to report. We also thank members of the project advisory board for their assistance with the survey and for their valuable feedback and suggestions on the analysis. This report was prepared as part of an ongoing project on the Indiana Nonprofit Sector: Scope and Community Dimensions made possible by a grant from the Aspen Institute s Nonprofit Sector Research Fund and by support for the Efroymson Chair in Philanthropy by the Indianapolis Foundation at the Central Indiana Community Foundation and the Indiana University Center on Philanthropy s Indiana Research Fund, supported in part by Lilly Endowment Inc. Additional funding and in-kind support has been provided by WBH Evansville, Inc.; The Center for Urban Policy and the Environment at I.U.P.U.I.; the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University on the, Indianapolis, South Bend, Northwest, and Fort Wayne campuses; Ball State University; and the University of Southern Indiana. We are grateful to Curtis Child and Kerry Brock for help in developing the analysis and finalizing the report. We also thank members of the Advisory Board for the Indiana Nonprofit Sector: Scope and Community Dimensions project for helpful comments and suggestions. The survey instrument is based on key concepts developed by the Donors Forum of Chicago. Laurie Paarlberg did much of the initial work in developing the survey instrument and we received much valuable feedback on several versions of the instrument from a large number of individuals. We also acknowledge the work by Ange Cahoon, Amy Horst, Hun Myoung Park, Allison Leeuw, Julie Schaefer and Erin Nave in carrying out a variety of follow-up tasks to the survey, by Linda Allen, Curtis Child, and Richard Clerkin for their related work on other reports from this survey, and by the Center for Survey Research at Indiana University for managing the survey process itself. The support and efforts of all of these strengthened this work enormously and we are grateful to them all. Of course, any remaining problems remain our responsibilities entirely. We are grateful to the many project research assistants who have worked on the survey in various capacities. Copies of this report are available on the Indiana Nonprofit Sector website ( Suggested Citation Nonprofits: Scope and Dimensions, Nonprofit Survey Series Community Report Number 1, by Kirsten A. Grønbjerg and Patricia Borntrager Tennen (, IN: Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs, December, 2005).

4 BLOOMINGTON NONPROFITS: SCOPE AND DIMENSIONS INDIANA NONPROFITS: SCOPE & COMMUNITY DIMENSIONS NONPROFIT SURVEY SERIES COMMUNITY REPORT #1 A JOINT PRODUCT OF THE CENTER ON PHILANTHROPY AT INDIANA UNIVERSITY THE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC & ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AT INDIANA UNIVERSITY AND THE JOHNS HOPKINS NONPROFIT EMPLOYMENT DATA PROJECT KIRSTEN A. GRØNBJERG AND PATRICIA BORNTRAGER TENNEN DECEMBER 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction... 2 Key Findings... 3 I. Profile... 4 Missions, Size, Age, Targeting, and Demands... 4 Indiana Nonprofits... 4 Nonprofits... 4 II. Managing Human and Financial Resources... 6 Financial Conditions... 6 Indiana Nonprofits... 6 Nonprofits... 6 Financial Challenges and Tools... 8 Indiana Nonprofits... 8 Nonprofits... 8 Staff, Volunteer, and Board Resources: Challenges and Tools... 9 Indiana Nonprofits... 9 Nonprofits... 9 Other Management Challenges and Capacities Indiana Nonprofits Nonprofits III. Affiliations, Collaborations, and Competition Formal Affiliations Indiana Nonprofits Nonprofits Networks and Collaborations Indiana Nonprofits Nonprofits Most Important Relationship Indiana Nonprofits Nonprofits Effects of Networks and Collaborations Indiana Nonprofits Nonprofits Competition Indiana Nonprofits Nonprofits IV. Community and Policy Conditions Community Conditions and Impacts Indiana Nonprofits Nonprofits Policy Conditions and Impacts Indiana Nonprofits Nonprofits Nonprofit Advocacy Indiana Nonprofits Nonprofits Project Publications and Reports

5 INTRODUCTION: As part of the Indiana Nonprofits: Scope and Community Dimensions project, we and a team of colleagues have undertaken a comprehensive study of the nonprofit sector in Indiana. Through a series of reports, we have looked broadly at the distribution of different types of nonprofits across the state, but have also focused more in depth on the internal structure and operations of individual nonprofit organizations. Drawing on a large survey, 1 we have profiled Indiana nonprofits by assessing their basic organizational features and characteristics: revenues, funding sources, employees, volunteers, age, service capacity, and so on. We have also analyzed how they relate to the communities in which they operate and the types of relationships that they have developed with other organizations. And we have presented in depth analyses of their financial conditions, management challenges and capacities. area nonprofits (i.e. vs. ). To conserve space, we present these in the same figure. Figure 1: The Indiana Nonprofit Sector Project, selected communities In this report, we take a new approach by focusing on a specific geographic region the metropolitan region to see how these nonprofits differ from or resemble others in the state. We are able to do so because the statewide survey of 2,206 Indiana nonprofits, on which the report is based, included an expanded sample of nonprofits in twelve communities across the state, including 136 in, shown in Figure 1. For purposes of this analysis, we define the region to include Monroe County. 2 We compare nonprofits to all other nonprofits in the state (labeled in the figures that follow as Not ). We also compare nonprofits to nonprofits in six other Indiana metropolitan areas: Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, Northwest, South Bend, Evansville, and Muncie (we refer to these as nonprofits, shown in dark colors in Figure 1). 3 Thus for every figure presented here we conducted two analyses. One compares nonprofits to all other nonprofits in the state (i.e. vs. Not ); the other compares nonprofits to other metro 1 For information on the survey and related results, please see 2 In another series of reports on nonprofit employment we use economic regional definitions as originally developed by the Indiana Department of Commerce in order to present as much detail as possible. 3 Please note that the Not and categories are not mutually exclusive, in that all nonprofits are included in the Not category. For each analysis, we also conducted statistical tests to determine whether variations in responses to survey questions are sufficiently different that we can rule out random chance as the reason for any apparent differences. nonprofits exhibit many similar characteristics to other nonprofits throughout the state and in other metro areas for most of the questions we asked, but vary in a number of cases. When there are statistically significant differences, we make this known by including a note at the bottom of the figure. In this report, we examine several broad themes: the characteristics of nonprofits in Indiana and, the impact of community and policy changes on them, their relationships with other organizations, and their management of financial and human resources. For each topic we begin with a brief overview of all Indiana nonprofits, regardless of their geographic location in the state. This is followed by an analysis of nonprofits, including how they compare to nonprofits in the rest of the state and those in other metropolitan areas. 2

6 KEY FINDINGS: Our report shows that nonprofits resemble other nonprofits throughout the state of Indiana and in other metro areas in many dimensions. However, it also shows that they vary notably in a number of ways. Here we will summarize the ways that nonprofits are unique (keeping in mind that overall, they are more similar than dissimilar). Different fields of activity. has larger numbers of arts and culture nonprofits than in the rest of the state and in the other metro areas included in the study, but it has fewer public benefit nonprofits than other areas of the state. nonprofits are younger. The median and mean ages of nonprofits are substantially younger than other nonprofits throughout the state. Differences in targeting. nonprofits are more likely to target programs and services by occupation and less likely to target by geographical location than the rest of the state. nonprofits are somewhat larger. Compared to the rest of the state and nonprofits in other metro areas nonprofits have higher revenues and showed greater increases in revenues. However, they share the statewide pattern of more pervasive increases in expenditures than in revenues. nonprofits report more challenges, but also more management tools. Nonprofits in report greater challenges in a number of arenas than nonprofits statewide and in other metro areas. At the same time they are more likely to have key organizational components and IT tools to face these challenges. More likely to collaborate formally. Compared to nonprofits statewide and in other metro areas, higher percentages of nonprofits are involved in formal collaborations and networks. Different partners. nonprofits are more likely to partner with government agencies and for-profit organizations. They also tend to have more heterogeneous networks, composed of a greater variety of types of organizations. Special community conditions. nonprofits saw greater increases in population size along with greater tension between community groups, but they report fewer increases in crime and violence than nonprofits statewide and in other metro areas. More policy impacts. While the perceptions of nonprofits in regards to policy conditions are nearly identical to other nonprofits and metropolitan organizations statewide, they tend to report more impacts from changes in policy conditions. Different funding sources. nonprofits are more dependent on dues/fees and private sales than nonprofits throughout the state. They are less likely to depend on funding generated from special events. Fewer financial audits. For some reason, nonprofits are notably less likely to report a recent completed financial audit than nonprofits in other metro areas. Board of director issues. nonprofits report greater difficulties in recruiting and retaining board members and managing board staff relations. They also report greater competition for board members. 3

7 I. PROFILE Missions, Size, Age, Targeting, and Demands: In order to understand s nonprofit sector we first assess some basic characteristics of nonprofit organizations, such as their field of activity, size, age, targeting patterns, and how the demands for their programs and services have changed over time. 4 We present an overview of state patterns before discussing how nonprofits compare to nonprofits in other metro areas as well as all other nonprofits in the state. For the most part, nonprofits resemble other nonprofits in metro and non-metro regions throughout the state, but differ notably in a few cases. Indiana Nonprofits: Fields of Activity: Indiana nonprofits pursue a broad array of missions, but half focus on just two fields: human services and religiousspiritual development. Employees: Only 52 percent of Indiana nonprofits have paid staff, and of these 41 percent have two or less full-time equivalent (FTE) staff. On average, staff compensation absorbs half of all expenses. Health (32 percent) and education (24 percent) nonprofits tend to have a larger number of paid staff members (more than 50 Full Time Equivalent, FTEs) while mutual benefit (64 percent), public benefit (56 percent), and arts, culture, and humanities (35 percent) nonprofits tend to have a small number of paid staff members (0.5 to 2 FTEs). Year of Establishment: Almost one-half (48 percent) of nonprofits were established since 1970, including one-fifth (21 percent) since However, one-quarter is very old and was established before For more detailed description of these dimensions across the entire nonprofit sector of Indiana see Kirsten A. Grønbjerg & Linda Allen: The Indiana Nonprofit Sector: a Profile. Report #2, January and other regions were described briefly in the appendices of this report. Targeting: Many target their services to particular groups, especially based on age and geographic regions. Change in Demand: Many face increasing demands for services. Nonprofits: Fields of Activity: Generally, the distribution of nonprofits across the different fields of activity at the state level is similar to the distribution of nonprofits in. However, has a larger percentage of arts and culture nonprofits (10 percent) than other areas of the state (4 percent) and other metropolitan areas (6 percent). At the same time there are fewer public benefit nonprofits (11 percent) in than in other areas of the state (19 percent). See Figure 2. Figure 2: Distribution of nonprofits by major field of activity and region Human Services Not 32% 32% 29% 24% 22% 21% Religion 19% 17% 11% 11% 1 9% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 3% Education Public Benefit * Arts and Culture *+ Mutual Benefit Health (* Significant difference between and Not + Significant difference between and ) Note: n=136; Not n=2,070; n=1,213 Other Employees: nonprofits, other metro area nonprofits, and nonprofits throughout the state have a median of 0.5 to 1 full-time equivalents (FTEs). The distribution of nonprofits across the six size categories are approximately the same regardless of whether the nonprofits are located in or other areas. See Figure 3. Year of Establishment: nonprofits tend to be younger than other nonprofits 4

8 throughout the state. The mean age of nonprofits is 39 years, compared to an average age of 50 years in the rest of the state. The median age of nonprofits is about 8 years younger than for the rest of the state. See Figure 4. Change in Demand: Like other nonprofits in Indiana, most nonprofits said demands for their services or programs increased (52 percent) or stayed the same (38 percent) over the last three years. Very few said that demand decreased (10 percent). See Figure 6. Figure 3: Number of nonprofit FTE staff, by region % 4% 5% 7% 14% 1 11% 13% 17% 21% 47% 49% 1 45% Not (No statistically significant differences) More Than to to to to 2 None Note: n= 128; Not n= 1,913; n= 1,111 Figure 4: Mean and median age of nonprofits, by region Not Mean Age * Median Age * (* Significant difference between Bloomingon and Not ) Note: n=128; Not n=1,913; n=1,111 Targeting: Compared to the rest of the state (56 percent), nonprofits are less likely to target their programs and activities by geographical location (46 percent). However, they are more likely to target programs by occupation (26 percent vs. 18 percent). Aside from these two divergences, nonprofits target their programs similarly to nonprofits in other areas. See Figure Figure 5: Percent of nonprofits targeting some or all programs to specific groups, by region % 56% 56% 53% 55% 5 46% Age Geography * Not 36% Gender 31% 26% 25% 23% 22% 22% 22% % Occupation * Income Religion Race (* Significant difference between and Not ) 32% 25% 23% Note: n= ; Not n= ; Other Metro n= Figure 6: Percent of nonprofits reporting changes in demands for programs and services over the last three years, by region % 5% 3% 2% 2% % 19% 13% 14% 33% 32% 32% Not (No statistically significant differences) Other Decreased Moderately Decreased Significantly Stayed the Same Increased Significantly Increased Moderately Note: n=126; Not n=1,962; n=1,146 5

9 II. MANAGING HUMAN AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES Financial Conditions: We asked Indiana nonprofits to provide information about their revenues, expenses, assets and liabilities, as well as how these have changed over the past three years. 5 Overall, the financial condition of nonprofits appears to be better off than nonprofits throughout the state and in other metro areas. Indiana Nonprofits: Amount of Revenues: Most Indiana nonprofits have low revenues (half have less than $40,000 in annual revenues), but education and health nonprofits are quite large respectively 15 and 14 percent have revenues of $10 million or more, compared to 3 percent overall. More health nonprofits (37 percent) have assets in excess of $1 million than those in other nonprofit fields (20 percent overall). Change in Revenues and Expenses: Other than in the health field, a greater proportion of nonprofits report at least a moderate increase in expenses (65 percent) than report a moderate increase in their revenues (57 percent), indicating that a large number of Indiana nonprofits face a challenge in developing a cushion of financial resources to meet unforeseen organizational and community needs. Change in Funding Sources: Larger nonprofits are more likely than smaller ones to report changes in the level of revenues they receive from government sources. Smaller nonprofits are more likely than larger ones to report changes in the level of revenues they receive from donations, dues/fees/sales, special events, and other sources of income. Nonprofits that depend upon a single type of revenue are the most likely to report a change in that revenue stream. Nonprofits that rely on a mix of funding are the second most likely group to report changes in each source of revenues, potentially allowing them to off-set decreases in one type of revenue with increases in a different type of revenue. nonprofits: Amount of Revenues: Median annual revenues for nonprofits are approximately $90,000, compared to medians of only $60,000 in other metro areas and $42,896 throughout the state. nonprofits are notably larger than other nonprofits throughout the state, as shown in Figure 7. Figure 7: Amount of revenues reported by nonprofits, by region % 36% 33% No revenues LT $25K Funding Sources: One-third (32 percent) receive half or more of their funding from donations and gifts and 28 percent receive at least half of their funding from dues, fees, or private sales of goods and services. Another 14 percent of nonprofits receive at least half of their funding from special events or other sources, while government funding is the dominant source of funding for only 7 percent of nonprofits. The remaining nonprofits rely on a mix of funding sources (12 percent) or they have no revenues (6 percent) % 1 16% 21% 14% 1 15% 12% 16% 15% 12% 16% * Not (* Significant difference between and Not ) $25K-$99K $100K-$249K $250K-$999K $1M or More Note: n= 108; Not n=1,616; n= For more detailed analysis see Kirsten A. Grønbjerg & Richard M. Clerkin, Indiana Nonprofits: Managing Financial and Human Resources, Report #4. August Change in Revenues and Expenses: The majority of nonprofits indicate that their revenues increased moderately (34 percent) or significantly (18 percent) over the last few years. 6

10 Nonprofits in other metro areas and non-metro regions statewide are not as likely to report such significant increases. See Figure 8. Figure 8: Percent of nonprofits reporting changes in revenues and expenses, by region % 6% 1 17% 13% 14% 34% Revenues *+ 39% 39% 4 45% 46% % 32% % 7% 7% 5% 3% 7% 1% 1% Not Not Expenses (* Significant difference between and Not + Significant difference between and ) Increased Significantly Increased Moderately Stayed the Same Decreased Moderately Decreased Significantly Note: n= 114; Not n= 1,665-1,667; Other Metro n= Changes in expenses do not vary so notably. More than 9 out of 10 nonprofits said that expenses stayed the same (28 percent) or increased (64 percent). This is similar to nonprofits in other metro areas and for all nonprofits throughout the state. nonprofits follow the statewide pattern of more pervasive increases in expenditures than in revenues. Funding Sources: Like other Indiana nonprofits, nonprofits rely most extensively on dues/fees and donations. However, nonprofits are notably more likely to depend on dues/fees (33 percent) than nonprofits throughout the state (24 percent). Some 31 percent rely on donations while 15 percent rely on a mix of funding sources. See Figure 9. Almost 1 in 10 nonprofits rely on the sale of private goods, a percentage notably higher than nonprofits throughout the state and in other metro areas (4 percent each). nonprofits are less likely to depend on revenue generated from special events (3 percent) than nonprofits throughout the state or in other metro areas (8 percent each). Change in Funding Sources: Reported changes in various sources of revenues were similar to those of nonprofits in the rest of the state and in other metro areas. See Figure 10. Figure 9: Percent of nonprofits that receive more than onehalf of their annual revenues from selected source, by region Not 33% 32% 31% 29% 27% 24% Dues/Fees * Donations Mix of Sources 15% 12% 11% 9% Private Sales *+ 4% Government 7% Special Events *+ 6% 6% 7% 3% 3% Other (* Significant differences between and Not + Significant differences between and ) None *+ Note: n= 123; Not n=1,875; n=1,086 Figure 10: Percent reporting changes in revenues from government funding, donations and dues or fees by region Government Donations Dues/Fees 7% 3% 5% 13% 14% 1 6% 7% 2% 4% 5% 14% 24% 19% 19% 32% 3 32% 65% 74% 72% 3 45% 4 64% 62% 65% 7% 13% 13% 1 6% 7% 11% 13% 6% 3% 6% 3% 4% 5% 3% 1% 2% Not Not (No statistically significant differences) Not Increased Significantly Increased Moderately Stayed the Same Decreased Moderately Decreased Significantly Note: n=63-91; Not n=921-1,384; Other Metro n= Government funding and revenues from dues and fees stayed the same for a majority of nonprofits (65 percent each) but increased for approximately one-fifth. Donations decreased for a small minority and increased for approximately two-fifths of nonprofits in. 7

11 Revenues from special events, private sales or other sources stayed the same for most nonprofits, (62 percent, 61 percent and 67 percent respectively), in a pattern similar to nonprofits from other parts of the state. See Figure 11. Figure 11: Percent reporting changes in revenues from special events, private sales, or other sources of funding, by region Special Events Private Sales Other 3% 3% 9% 3% 5% 2% 4% 4% 19% 14% 16% 13% 1 15% 19% 16% 64% 6 62% 61% 73% 67% 72% 69% 7 13% 16% 1 12% 7% 7% 7% 3% 2% 2% 4% 2% 1% 2% 4% 4% Not Not (No statistically significant differences) Not Increased Significantly Increased Moderately Stayed the Same Decreased Moderately Decreased Significantly Note: n=62-82; Not n=890-1,171; Other Metro n= Financial Challenges and Tools: We asked Indiana nonprofits to report on the level of challenges they face in managing finances and on the management tools they have to address these challenges. We find that, for the most part, nonprofits face very similar challenges to and possess the same tools as other Indiana nonprofits. Indiana Nonprofits: Challenges in Financial Management: Almost half of Indiana nonprofits (49 percent) face major challenges in obtaining funding. Those in the health (78 percent) and the environment and animals (72 percent) fields are the most likely to say that obtaining funding is a major challenge. Financial Management Tools: Larger nonprofits are more likely than smaller ones to report facing financial management challenges. However, they are also more likely to have organizational tools to address these challenges. Nonprofits that rely on government sources for more than half of their revenues are more likely to report financial management challenges than nonprofits with other resource dependencies (83 percent say obtaining funding is a major challenge vs. 43 percent overall; 20 percent say managing finances is a major challenge vs. 10 percent overall). At the same time, those that rely on dues/fees/sales for more than half of their resources appear to face the lowest level of financial management challenges, but they are also the least likely to report having financial management tools. Older nonprofits are more likely to have reserves dedicated to maintenance or capital needs than younger ones. Nonprofits: Challenges in Financial Management: nonprofits are not immune to the financial challenges that nonprofits face in other metro areas and in the state more generally. Half (49 percent) say that obtaining funding is a major challenge, although relatively few indicate that financial management and managing facilities are major challenges (12 percent each). See Figure 12. nonprofits are notably more likely to report challenges in using IT effectively (22 percent) than other nonprofits statewide (15 percent) and in other metro areas (17 percent). This is not surprising, considering our finding in a later section of this report that nonprofits are more likely to have IT components. See Figure 12. Financial Management Tools: Like nonprofits throughout the state and in other metro areas, some nonprofits in have tools to help them address potential or real financial challenges. While a clear majority have computerized financial records (68 percent), only half (52 percent) have a recent financial audit, a percentage notably smaller than nonprofits in other metro areas (65 percent). See Figure 13. 8

12 Figure 12: Percent of nonprofits that indicate select issues are a major challenge, by region % 46% 43% Obtaining Funding Not 22% 17% 15% Using IT Effectively * 12% 11% 12% Financial Management 12% (* Significant difference between and Not ) 13% Managing Facilities Note: n= ; Not n= 1,821-1,829; n= 1,061-1,071 Figure 13: Percent of nonprofits that have select organizational components, by region % 65% 6 61% Computerized Financial Records Not 52% Recent Financial Audit + 44% 42% Financial Reserves for Maintenance (+ Significant difference between and ) 35% 32% Financial Reserves for Capital Needs Note: n= ; Not n=1,875-1,898; Other Metro n=1,090-1,105 Similar to nonprofits statewide and in other metro areas, substantial minorities of nonprofits have financial reserves dedicated to maintenance (44 percent) or capital needs (35 percent). Staff, Volunteer, and Board Resources, Challenges, and Tools: We asked Indiana nonprofits how many volunteers and paid staff they have, as well as about the challenges they face in managing them and the tools they have to address these challenges. We found that nonprofits generally resemble other Indiana nonprofits in rural and metropolitan areas; however, they differ significantly in a few cases. Indiana Nonprofits: Paid and Volunteer Staff: Just over half (52 percent) of Indiana nonprofits report that they have paid staff. Volunteers are vital to Indiana nonprofits. Almost three-fourths report using volunteers over the past year. Of these, 74 percent report that volunteers are essential or very important to their organization. Volunteers tend to be more important to older nonprofits than to younger ones. Challenges: We find no statistically significant difference by nonprofit field in the challenges related to managing human resources or recruiting/retaining qualified staff. Tools: Neither did we find statistically significant differences by nonprofit field in the challenges related to the tools associated with managing paid employees (written personnel policies or written job descriptions). Nonprofits that rely on government sources for more than half of their revenues have more employees (25 percent have over 50 FTEs), are more likely to have basic organizational structures in place to manage employees, and are also more likely to face challenges in managing employees than those with other funding profiles. Larger nonprofits, most likely because they tend to have more employees, are more likely than smaller ones to face challenges in managing employees, but also have the tools to manage their staff. Health nonprofits (70 percent vs. 30 percent on average) are more likely than any other group to report having a written conflict of interest policy, most likely reflecting special pressures associated with funding, accreditation, or professional licensing requirements. Few nonprofits have volunteer recruitment (18 percent) or volunteer training (21 percent) programs. Nonprofits: 9

13 Paid and Volunteer Staff: Some 54 percent of nonprofits in utilize paid staff, on par with nonprofits statewide and in other metro areas. Nearly four-fifths (79 percent) of nonprofits report that they used volunteers during the most recent fiscal year. Use of volunteers is slightly higher than nonprofits throughout the state and in other metro areas, however not significantly so. Challenges: nonprofits are more likely to report challenges regarding board members. Over one third (35 percent) of nonprofits say that recruiting and retaining board members is a major challenge compared to 21 percent of other nonprofits statewide, and 26 percent of nonprofits in other metro areas. Only 11 percent say that managing board/staff relations is a major challenge, but this is a notably larger percentage than other nonprofits statewide (6 percent). See Figure 14. Figure 14: Percent of nonprofits that indicate selected issues are a major challenge, by region % 21% 26% Recruit/Retain Board Members *+ Not 32% 2 Recruit/Retain Volunteer 19% 15% 16% 15% 13% 13% Recruit/Retain Staff Manage Human Resources (* Significant difference Between and Not + Significant difference between and ) 11% 6% 7% Manage Board/Staff Relations * Note: n= ; Not n=1,807-2,070; Other Metro n=1,059-1,213 Tools: The great majority (95 percent) of nonprofits have written governance policies, a percentage notably higher than other nonprofits statewide (86 percent) and in other metro areas (88 percent). See Figure 15. Some 63 percent have written job descriptions and 54 percent have written personnel policies in a pattern similar to other nonprofits statewide and in other metro areas. While only two-fifths (39 percent) of nonprofits have written conflict of interest policies, they are more likely to have them than other nonprofits throughout the state (30 percent). Figure 15: Percent of nonprofits that have selected organizational components, by region % 86% 8 Written Governance Policies *+ Not 63% 63% 5 Written Job Descriptions 54% 49% 46% Written Personnel Policies (* Significant difference between and Not + Significant difference between and ) 39% 33% 3 Written Conflict of Interest Policies * Note: n= ; Not n=1,881-1,905; Other Metro n=1,081-1,107 nonprofits are notably more likely than other nonprofits throughout the state to have a formal volunteer training program (26 percent vs. 18 percent). They also appear to be more likely to have volunteer recruitment programs; however, the difference is not significant. See Figure 16. Figure 16: Percent of nonprofits that have selected organizational components, by region Not 27% 21% 22% 26% 1 Volunteer Recruitment Program Volunteer Training Program * (* Significant difference between and Not ) Note: n= ; Not n=1,875-1,886; Other Metro n=1,090-1,099 10

14 Other Management Challenges and Capacities: We asked Indiana nonprofits about other challenges they face and the organizational tools they have to address various challenges. We find that in almost every case, nonprofits are more likely than nonprofits statewide and in other metro areas to report challenges. However, nonprofits are also notably more likely to have IT tools to combat these challenges. Indiana nonprofits: Challenges: We asked Indiana nonprofits whether certain aspects of delivering and managing programs are a challenge. According to their responses, we find that attracting clients and members is perhaps most challenging. It is a major challenge for approximately one-half of Indiana nonprofits. This is especially the case for nonprofits in the environment and religion fields. Religion nonprofits are also disproportionately likely to say that meeting the needs of its members and clients is a major challenge. On average, one-third of Indiana nonprofits report similarly. The same is true for delivering high quality programs. Arts, culture and humanities nonprofits (36 percent) are more likely than human services nonprofits (17 percent) to say they face a major challenge in evaluating their outcomes or impacts. IT Tools: A majority of Indiana nonprofits have computers (65 percent) and internet access (54 percent) available for key staff and volunteers. Some 47 percent of organizations have their own address and 34 percent have their own website. While evaluating programs is only a major challenge for one in four nonprofits, this rate is notably higher than for other nonprofits throughout the state (18 percent). While only 15 percent of nonprofits say that maintaining good relations with other entities is a major challenge, this is significantly higher than the percentages of nonprofits statewide (8 percent) and in other metro areas (9 percent) that report the same. Figure 17: Percent of nonprofits that indicate selected issues are a major challenge, by region % 31% Enhancing Visibility *+ Not 35% 26% Strategic Planning *+ 25% 21% 1 Evaluating Programs * 15% (* Significant difference between and Not + Significant difference between and ) 9% Maintaing Good Relations *+ Note: n=136; Not n=2,070; n=1,213 In a pattern that resembles other nonprofits statewide and in other metro areas, 51 percent of nonprofits face major challenges in attracting new clients 6 ; 33 percent face major challenges in delivering quality programs; 30 percent face major challenges in meeting clients needs; and 19 percent face major challenges in communicating with clients. See Figure 18. Nonprofits: Challenges: nonprofits report greater challenges than other nonprofits statewide and in other metro areas in selected areas. Enhancing visibility (45 percent) and strategic planning (35 percent) stand out notably as major challenges to higher numbers of nonprofits. See Figure 17. IT Tools: Information and communication technology, among other things, helps nonprofits organize records and files, develop and maintain relationships with other organizations, keep up to date with funding opportunities and deadlines, and retrieve important information and data from the Internet. nonprofits are more likely than other nonprofits statewide to have these information technology tools. 6 In the case of attracting new clients, differences suggested by Figure 18 are not statistically significant. 11

15 Three fourths of nonprofits have computers available for key staff and volunteers compared to 65 percent of nonprofits statewide. See Figure 19. Figure 18: Percent of nonprofits that indicate selected issues are a major challenge, by region % 44% 42% Attracting New Clients Not 33% 32% Delivering Quality Programs Meeting Clients' Needs (No statistically significant differences) 19% 17% Communicating with Clients Note: n= ; Not n=1,841-2,070; Other Metro n=1,080-1,213 Figure 19: Percent of nonprofits that have selected organizational components, by region % 69% 65% Not 62% 54% % 47% 5 34% 42% III. AFFILIATIONS, COLLABORATIONS AND COMPETITION Formal Affiliations: We asked Indiana nonprofits whether they are affiliated with another organization as a headquarter, local subsidiary, or in another way. 7 nonprofits are nearly identical to other nonprofits statewide and in metropolitan areas, however they are more likely to received funding from the United Way. Indiana Nonprofits: Affiliations: More than half of Indiana nonprofits are affiliated in some way. This is especially the case for nonprofits in the public and societal benefit (e.g., advocacy, community development, philanthropy) and religion fields, older nonprofits, and medium-sized and large organizations. Besides religious bodies, with whom most religion nonprofits are affiliated, Indiana nonprofits in every field are most likely to be affiliated with various mutual benefit or membership associations (e.g., fraternal organizations, professional or trade associations and the like). Grants from Federated Funders: Some 14 percent of Indiana nonprofits received funds from federated funders during the most recently completed fiscal year. This is disproportionately so for nonprofits in the health and human services fields. Nonprofits: Computers * Internet Access Address * Website *+ (* Significant difference between and Not + Significant difference between and ) Note: n= ; Not n=1,869-1,908; Other Metro n=1,094-1,109 Affiliations: Just over one-half (53 percent) of nonprofits are formally affiliated with another organization. This mirrors the statewide and metro area pattern. See Figure 20. Some three-fifths of nonprofits have direct Internet access (62 percent), an organizational address (60 percent), and an organizational website (58 percent). nonprofits are more likely than nonprofits statewide to have their own address. They are also far more likely than nonprofits throughout the state (34 percent) and in other metro areas (42 percent) to have their own website. Grants from Federated Funders: Some 14 percent of nonprofits indicate that they received a grant from the United Way during the most recent fiscal year, a notably higher percentage than for other nonprofits throughout 7 For more detailed analysis of all Indiana nonprofits see Kirsten A. Grønbjerg & Curtis Child, Indiana Nonprofits: Affiliations, Collaborations, and Competition. Report #5. November

16 the state (8 percent). Small minorities received a grant from religious federated funders (8 percent) or other federated funders (5 percent) in a pattern similar to other nonprofits throughout Indiana. In all, one-fifth of nonprofits received a grant from any one of these types of federated funders. See Figure 21. Figure 20: Percent of nonprofits formally affiliated with another organization, by region % 57% 56% Not (No statistically significant differences) Note: n=199; Not n=1,882; n=1,080 Figure 21: Percent of nonprofits that receive grants or support from federated funders, by region % 9% United Way * Not 6% 7% Religious Federated Funder 5% 4% 6% Other Federated Funder (* Significant difference between and Not ) 13% 17% Any Federated Funder Note: n= ; Not n=1,795-1,808; Other Metro n=1,026-1,036 Networks and Collaborations: We asked Indiana nonprofits whether they participate in formal collaborations or informal networks with other entities. nonprofits appear more likely than other nonprofits statewide and in other metro areas to be involved in formal relationships. Indiana Nonprofits: More than half (57 percent) of Indiana nonprofits are involved in collaborations or networks. Informal networks are more common than formal collaborations. Overall, participation in collaborations or networks relates most significantly to the nonprofits size and their access to technology larger nonprofits and those with basic information technology components are most likely to indicate that they participate in such relationships. Nonprofits: Some 44 percent of nonprofits in are involved in informal relationships while 41 percent are involved in formal relationships. Nonprofits in are more likely than nonprofits statewide (26 percent) and in other metro areas (28 percent) to indicate that they participate in formal relationships. Over two thirds (67 percent) of nonprofits are involved in both formal and informal relationships, also higher than nonprofits in the rest of the state (57 percent). See Figure 22. Figure 22: Percent of nonprofits involved in informal or formal relationships, by region % Not 42% 41% 26% 2 67% 57% 5 Informal Formal *+ Informal and Formal * (* Significant difference between and Not + Significant difference between and ) Note: n= ; Not n=1,897-1,939; Other Metro n=1,115-1,138 Most Important Relationship: We asked nonprofits that participate in networks or collaborations to focus on the most important one and to tell us how many and what types of organizations are part of the relationship. 13

17 We found that nonprofits are more likely to collaborate with government agencies and for-profit organizations. They also tend to have more heterogeneous networks than other nonprofits statewide and in other metro areas. Indiana Nonprofits: Size of Networks: The median number of organizations in Indiana nonprofits most important network or collaboration is five, although the number is disproportionately higher for health nonprofits and for religion nonprofits that provide human services. Nonprofits that are small in size and lack technology are disproportionately likely to participate in small networks and collaborations. Types of Organizations in Networks: About half of the relationships are homogeneous in scope, involving only one or two different types of organizations. The variety of organizations involved is positively related to how many organizations are involved in the relationship. Figure 23: Number of organizations involved in most important relationship, by region % 13% 16% 17% 21% 29% 19% 11% 19% 3 27% 14% 17% 3 22% Not (No statistically significant differences) 20 or More 11 to 20 6 to 10 3 to 5 1 to 2 Note: n=69; Not n=830; n=511 Types of Organizations in Networks: We asked nonprofits to identify the types of organizations with which they collaborate in their most important relationship. Like nonprofits throughout Indiana and in other metro areas, nonprofits are most likely to name secular service organizations in their most important relationship (49 percent). See Figure 24. Generally, Indiana nonprofits are most likely to say that secular service organizations (42 percent) and religious bodies (41 percent) are involved in these relationships, although this varies according to the field of service in which they are active. Many nonprofits are also involved with government agencies (33 percent) or for-profit organizations (23 percent). Figure 24: Types of organization identified in Indiana nonprofits most important relationship, by region Not 49% 45% 42% 41% 41% 3 37% 37% 36% 33% 34% 32% 33% 3 29% 3 26% 22% 24% Nonprofits: Size of Networks: For nonprofits that participate in networks and collaborations, the median number of organizations in these relationships is 6, slightly higher than for nonprofits in other metro areas and for nonprofits across the state (both with medians of 5). Secular Service Org. Government Agency *+ For-Profit Org. *+ Religious Body Other Faith-Based Org. Mutual Benefit Org. Advocacy Org. (* Significant differences between and Not + Significant differences between and ) Note: n=81-83; Not n=1,014-1,037; Other Metro n= In, as well as the rest of the state, the majority of nonprofits that participate in relationships say that there are 10 or less members in their most important collaboration or network. See Figure 23. nonprofits diverge from the pattern of nonprofits statewide and in other metro areas when it comes to government agencies and forprofit organizations. Some 45 percent of nonprofits in say government agencies are included in their most important relationship and 38 percent name for-profit organizations, 14

18 compared to much smaller percentages for their counterparts statewide and in other metro areas. Although nonprofits most important relationship approximates the size of relationships reported by nonprofits throughout the state, nonprofits in do indicate that their most important relationship is slightly more heterogeneous. Figure 25 shows the mean number of different types of organizations with which nonprofits collaborate. The differences are not substantially large, but they are statistically significant. Figure 25: Mean number of types of organizations in most important relationship, by region *+ Not (* Significant difference between Bloomingon and Not + Significant difference between and ) Note: n=77; Not n=949; n=580 Figure 26 illustrates the same pattern. Over one fifth (23 percent) of nonprofits name 5 or more different types of organizations in their most important relationship compared to 8 percent of other nonprofits statewide with that same number. 2.4 easier for them to enhance their visibility or reputation, meet client or member needs, and obtain funding. Figure 26: Number of types of organizations in most important relationship, by region % 37% 34% 31% 31% 29% * Not 12% 16% 15% 7% 1 11% 5% 4% 5% 2% 1% (* Significant difference between and Not ) Note: n=77; Not n=949; n=580 Arts, culture and humanities nonprofits stand out as most likely to indicate that they benefit from involvement in networks and collaborations. Nonprofits: A large majority of nonprofits (85 percent) indicate that participating in networks and collaborations helps enhance their visibility or reputation. This figure is notably greater than for nonprofits throughout the state who report the same (68 percent). A clear majority (71 percent) also say that their relationships make it easier to meet client or member needs, compared to 54 percent of nonprofits statewide. See Figure 27. 7% 3% Effects of Networks and Collaborations: We asked Indiana nonprofits to indicate whether their involvement in networks and collaborations makes it easier, harder, or has no impact on maintaining key organizational capacities. We found that nonprofits resemble nonprofits statewide and in other metro areas in most cases, but they do differ notably at times. Indiana Nonprofits: Respondents are most likely to say that participation in networks or collaborations makes it Inter-organizational relationships make obtaining funding easier for just under two-fifths (39 percent) of the nonprofits in. This pattern is similar to other nonprofits, metro and non-metro, throughout the state. nonprofits, like other nonprofits throughout the state, are relatively unlikely to say that their participation in networks and collaborations helps them address some of the challenges of human resources management, such as 15

19 recruiting and retaining staff, volunteers, and board members. See Figure Figure 27: Effect of participation in networks or collaborations on maintaining key organizational capacities, by region Enhance Visibility * Meet Client Needs * 10 3% 4% % 16% 17% 4% 4% 19% 14% 13% 4% 2% 1% % % 6 72% Not 71% 54% 59% Not Obtaining Funding 23% 22% 26% 6% 6% 3% 31% 32% 3 39% 4 42% Not (* Significant difference between and Not ) NA Harder No Impact Easier Note: n=76-77; Not n= ; n= Figure 28: Effects of participation in networks or collaborations on maintaining key organizational capacities, by region Recuit/Keep Staff Recuit Board Members Recruit Volunteers 23% 25% 29% 33% 36% 31% 29% 3 34% 1% 4% 3% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% 1% 33% 41% 3 43% 45% 3 49% 5 41% 43% 3 3 Not 21% 26% 19% 19% 1 27% Not Not (No statistically significant differences) Note: n=77; Not n= ; n= NA Harder No Impact Easier Competition: We asked Indiana nonprofits to identify the arenas in which they compete with other organizations, as well as the different types of organizations with which they do so. While overall very similar, nonprofits in are more likely to compete for board members, and they are more likely to report competition with secular nonprofits. Indiana Nonprofits: Extent of Competition: Two-fifths of Indiana nonprofits compete with other organizations (both in and outside of the nonprofit sector) for a variety of resources. Types of Competitors: They compete most extensively with secular nonprofits (29 percent), followed by religious nonprofits (22 percent), businesses (13 percent), and governments (10 percent). Generally, the prevalence of competition with other organizations increases with size and access to technology. Nonprofits that participate in formal or informal relationships are also more likely to compete than those that do not. Nonprofits: Extent of Competition: nonprofits are similar to other nonprofits throughout the state in that only a minority report competition in various arenas. Approximately 2 in 5 compete with other organizations for funding; 1 in 3 compete with other organizations to attract clients or members; and 1 in 4 compete with other organizations in their efforts to recruit staff or volunteers, recruit board members, and deliver programs or services. nonprofits are significantly more likely to report competition for board members (23 percent) than other nonprofits throughout the state and in other metro areas (16 percent each). See Figure Types of Competitors: Reflecting the statewide and metro area patterns, nonprofits in are most likely to compete with secular nonprofits, followed by religious nonprofits, businesses, and government agencies. Almost 2 in 5 37 percent) nonprofits compete with secular nonprofits, a number notably higher than throughout the rest of the state (29 percent). See Figure In the case of recruiting/retaining staff, differences suggested by Figure 28 are only marginally significant. 9 In the case of obtaining funding, differences suggested in Figure 29 are only marginally significant. 16

20 Figure 29: Percent of nonprofits reporting competition with other organizations, by arena and region % 29% Obtaining Funding Not 29% 26% Attracting Clients 27% 21% Recruiting Staff/Volunteers 23% 23% 22% Delivering Services (* Significant difference between and Not + Significant difference between and ) 16% Recruiting Board Members*+ Note: n=136; Not n=2,070; n=1,213 Figure 30: Percent of nonprofits reporting competition, by type of competitor and region % 29% Secular Nonprofits * Not 1 22% Religious Nonprofits 21% 16% 14% 13% Business 11% 1 Government IV. COMMUNITY AND POLICY CONDITIONS Community Conditions and Impacts: We asked Indiana nonprofits for their perceptions of changes in seven community conditions and whether the changes have an impact on them. 10 While perceptions by nonprofits are similar overall to nonprofits statewide and in other metro areas, they are unique in a few respects. Indiana Nonprofits: Changes in Community Conditions: The majority of Indiana nonprofits report that one or more of the seven community conditions changed in their communities during the last three years and half report that multiple conditions changed. Overall, perceptions of changes in community conditions depend significantly on where the nonprofits are located and, in some cases, their size or target group. Perceptions do not vary according to age, field of activity, or primary source of funding. Just over half (51 percent) of Indiana nonprofits report that employment and business opportunities changed in their communities, with the majority of these (33 percent overall) saying they decreased. (* Significant difference between and Not ) Note: n=136; Not n=2,070; n=1,213 This was followed by changes in population size with half noting a change, of which most (42 percent overall) say it increased. About two-fifths (39 percent) say household income changed, with the majority (22 percent overall) of those saying it decreased. A third (36 percent) say ethnic or racial diversity changed, with almost all (34 percent overall) noting an increase. One in four say crime and violence changed, with most (19 percent overall) noting an increase. 10 For more detailed analysis on all Indiana nonprofits see Kirsten A. Grønbjerg & Curtis Child, Indiana Nonprofits: Impact of Community and Policy Changes. Report #3. July

21 About one in ten (11 percent) noted a change in tension or conflict among community groups, with almost all (8 percent overall) saying it increased. For some conditions there are striking similarities between how nonprofits perceive community conditions and official indicators of the conditions, but in other cases there are notable differences between perceptions and the actual conditions. Impacts from Community Conditions: One-half of Indiana nonprofits indicate that at least one of the conditions impacted their organization. Almost every condition tends to impact a higher percentage of mid-sized and large nonprofits than small ones, as well as those that target their programs to people of a particular income, gender, and/or race. lence, compared to 1 in 5 nonprofits statewide and in other metro areas. Figure 31: Percent of nonprofits reporting changes in selected community conditions, by region Employment Opportunities 5 12% % 33% 32% Not Population Size *+ 52% 42% 39% 1% Not Household Income 17% 17% 16% 27% 22%22% Not Racial Diversity 34% 26% 33% 21% 22% 1 1% 2% 2% 4% 3% 3% 3% 6% 6% Not Tension b/w Community Groups *+ Not Increased Decreased (* Significant difference between and Not + Significant difference between and ) Crime and Violence *+ Not Note: n=55-106; Not n=1,565-1,700; Other Metro n= For the most part, neither the age of an organization nor the field in which it operates helps explain why a given condition impacts nonprofits. Nonprofits: Changes in Community Conditions: Similar to other nonprofits throughout the state and in other metro areas, the majority of nonprofits face changes in employment opportunities and population size. Two in five nonprofits say that employment opportunities decreased; 52 percent say that population size increased, a notably larger proportion than throughout the state (42 percent) or in other metro areas (39 percent). See Figure In another divergence, 21 percent of nonprofits say that tension between community groups increased, compared to only 8 percent of nonprofits statewide or in other metro areas. While nonprofits are more likely to report increases in tension, they are less likely to report increases in crime and violence. Only 10 percent report increases in crime and vio- 11 The differences in employment opportunities suggested in Figure 31 are only marginally significant. Impacts from Community Conditions: Over two-fifths (43 percent) of nonprofits report that they are impacted by changes in employment opportunities compared to 1 in 3 nonprofits statewide or in other metro areas. See Figure 32. Figure 32: Percent of nonprofits reporting being impacted by selected community conditions, by region % 33% 34% 32% 32% 2 29% 2 26% Employment Opps * Not Household Income Population Size 21% 1 19% Racial Diversity 17% 17% 11% 12% 13% 1 Tension b/w Community Groups * (*Significant difference between and Not ) Crime & Violence Note: n=55-108; Not n=1,570-1,709; Other Metro n= Only 17 percent of nonprofits in say that tension between community groups impacted them, but this is notably higher than non- 18

22 profits throughout the state or in other metro areas (10 percent and 11 percent respectively). Policy Conditions and Impacts: We also asked Indiana nonprofits about changes in five government policies and whether the changes affect their organization. While the perceptions of nonprofits in regards to policy conditions are nearly identical to other nonprofits and metropolitan organizations statewide, they tend to report more impacts from changes in policy conditions. Indiana Nonprofits: Changes in Policies: More than one-third of Indiana nonprofits indicate that at least some policies have changed during the last three years, although this varies considerably depending on the type, size, and funding structure of the nonprofit. For almost every policy, health and human services nonprofits, large organizations, and those that depend primarily on government funding are the most likely to say that multiple policies changed. In almost all cases, the policies became stricter. Changes in health and safety regulations were the most commonly reported (23 percent say that such policies changed). These were followed by client eligibility requirements for government programs (16 percent), personnel and legal regulations (15 percent), professional licensing requirements (14 percent), and government contract procurement policies (11 percent). Impacts from Policies: One-quarter of all Indiana nonprofits says that at least one of these policies had an impact on their organization. As with perceptions of policy changes, significantly more of the health and human services nonprofits, large organizations, and those that rely primarily on the government for funding say that this is the case. Overall, the policies were at least four or five times as likely to impact the nonprofits when the policy became stricter as when they became more lenient. Nonprofits: do not substantially differ from nonprofits across the state in the percentage that indicates the policies became stricter, more lenient, or did not change. They also do not differ from nonprofits in other metro areas. See Figure Figure 33: Percent of nonprofits reporting changes in selected policy conditions, by region 3 1 Health & Safety Regulations 1% 24% 22% 22% Not Client Eligibility 4% 3% 2% 1 13% 14% Not Personnel & Legal Regulations 3% 1% 1% 15%14% 15% Not Licensing Requirement s 1% 1% 1% 1% 16% 13% 15% 14% 11 Not (No statistically significant differences) Not More Relaxed Stricter Government Contract Policies Note: n=55-82; Not n=959-1,425; Other Metro n= Other 2% 1% 1% 17% 9% Not Impacts from Policies: Less than 1 in 4 nonprofits report that policy changes affect their organization; however, they are notably more likely to report impacts from changes in client eligibility (23 percent), health and safety regulations (22 percent), and other policy changes (18 percent) than nonprofits across Indiana or in other metro areas. See Figure 34. Nonprofit Advocacy: We asked Indiana nonprofits whether they promote positions on certain policy issues or on issues related to the interests of certain groups. nonprofits show patterns quite similar to other Indiana nonprofits, metropolitan and statewide in this respect. Indiana Nonprofits: Participation in Advocacy: More than onequarter of Indiana nonprofits indicate that they participate in some form of advocacy (although only 3 percent say it is one of their three most important programs or activities). Health nonprofits are the most likely to say that they en- Changes in Policies: For every policy condition about which we asked, nonprofits 12 Any differences between and other regions suggested in Figure 33 are not statistically significant. 19

23 gage in advocacy, followed by religious, public benefit, and human services nonprofits. Midsized and large organizations are also more likely to engage in advocacy than smaller ones. Figure 35: Percent of nonprofits that participate in advocacy, by region 4 34% Figure 34: Percent of nonprofits impacted by selected policy conditions, by region 3 Not 3 27% % 11% 22% 16% 14% 13% Client Health & Eligibility *+ Safety Regs *+ 11% 1 Licensing Reqs 15% Govt Contract Policies 14% 1 11% Personnel & Legal Regs (* Significant difference between and Not + Significant difference between and ) 1 6% Other *+ Note: n=56-84; Not n=964-1,431; Other Metro n= Resources for Advocacy: Many nonprofits that engage in advocacy devote only limited resources to it. One in ten of the organizations that say they participate in advocacy do not commit any financial, staff, or volunteer resources to it. Many Indiana nonprofits that are involved in advocacy have insufficient technological tools for it. While three-quarters of them have computers available, only two-thirds have Internet access and/or , and less than half have a website. Health and education nonprofits that participate in advocacy tend to be better equipped with such tools, while human services, arts, and especially mutual benefit nonprofits involved in advocacy tend to lack these tools. Large nonprofits and those that receive the majority of their funding from the government are considerably more likely to have all four tools. Nonprofits: Participation in Advocacy: Approximately 1 in 3 nonprofits participate in advocacy. This rate is higher than nonprofits statewide and in other metro areas, but only marginally so. See Figure Not (No statistically significant differences) Note: n=118; Not n=1,844; n=1,079 Resources for Advocacy: A great majority (94 percent) of nonprofits that are involved in advocacy say they devote at least some volunteer time to advocacy, including 31 percent who devote most of their volunteer resources towards advocacy efforts. This is on par with nonprofits throughout the state and in other metro areas. See Figure 36. Figure 36: Extent of nonprofit resources devoted to advocacy, by type of resource and region Volunteer Time Staff Time Financial Resources 2% 3% 5% 5% 7% 15% 16% 11% 9% 13% 13% 25% 24% 21% 1 1 7% 63% 53% 5 31% 27% 29% Not 56% 59% 64% % 9% 9% 1 1 7% Not (No statistically significant differences) Not NA None Some Most Note: n=34-36; Not n= ; n= Similar to nonprofits throughout Indiana and in other metro areas, nonprofits that are involved in advocacy do not devote substantial resources to it. 20

24 PROJECT PUBLICATIONS AND REPORTS Over the last several years a number of reports and articles related to the Indiana Nonprofit Sector Project have been published, in addition to papers presented at various colloquiums and conferences. The following citations include projectrelated reports and papers as of September Online reports, as well as summaries of all other items are available on the project website: To obtain a complete version of an unpublished paper please contact Kirsten Grønbjerg (kgronbj@indiana.edu, (812) ). Indiana Nonprofit Survey Analysis This survey of 2,206 Indiana nonprofits, completed in spring and early summer of 2002, covered congregations, other charities, advocacy nonprofits, and mutual benefit associations. It used a stratified random sample drawn from our comprehensive Indiana nonprofit database and structured so as to allow for comparisons among (1) different nonprofit source listings (including those identified through the personal affiliation survey) and (2) twelve selected communities around the state. The survey included questions about basic organizational characteristics, programs and target populations, finances and human resources, management tools and challenges, advocacy activities, affiliations, and involvement in networking and collaboration. An almost identical instrument was used to survey Illinois congregations, charities and advocacy nonprofits for the Donors Forum of Chicago (report available Online at December, 2003). Online Reports Northwest Region Nonprofits: Scope and Dimensions, by Kirsten A. Grønbjerg and Patricia Borntrager Tennen. Online report. Community Report #3. December 2005 ( Evansville Nonprofits: Scope and Dimensions, by Kirsten A. Grønbjerg and Patricia Borntrager Tennen. Online report. Community Report #2. December 2005 ( Nonprofits: Scope and Dimensions, by Kirsten A. Grønbjerg and Patricia Borntrager Tennen. Online report. Community Report #1. December 2005 ( Indiana Nonprofits: A Profile of Membership Organizations, by Kirsten A. Grønbjerg and Patricia Borntrager. Online report. Survey Report #6. September 2005 ( Indiana Nonprofits: Affiliation, Collaboration, and Competition, by Kirsten A. Grønbjerg and Curtis Child. Online report. Survey Report #5. November 2004 ( Indiana Nonprofits: Managing Financial and Human Resources, by Kirsten A. Grønbjerg and Richard M. Clerkin. Online report. Survey Report #4. August 2004 ( Indiana Nonprofits: Impact of Community and Policy Changes, by Kirsten A. Grønbjerg and Curtis Child. Online report. Survey Report #3. June 2004 ( The Indiana Nonprofit Sector: A Profile, by Kirsten A. Grønbjerg and Linda Allen. Online report. Survey Report #2. January 2004 ( 21

25 The Indianapolis Nonprofit Sector: Management Capacities and Challenges, by Kirsten A. Grønbjerg and Richard Clerkin. Online report. Preliminary Survey Report #1. February 2003 ( Journal Articles and Conference Presentations Nonprofit Networks and Collaborations: Incidence, Scope and Outcomes, by Kirsten Grønbjerg and Curtis Child. Paper prepared for presentation at the annual meetings of ARNOVA, Washington, D.C., November 17-19, A Portrait of Membership Associations: The Case of Indiana, by Kirsten Grønbjerg and Patricia Borntrager Tennen. Paper prepared for presentation at the annual meetings of ARNOVA, Washington, D.C., November 17-19, The Capacities and Challenges of Faith-Based Human Service Organizations, by Richard Clerkin and Kirsten A. Grønbjerg. Public Administration Review (forthcoming, 2006). Examining the Landscape of Indiana's Nonprofit Sector: Does What You See Depend on Where You Look? By Kirsten A. Grønbjerg and Richard Clerkin. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly 34 (No. 2, June): Infrastructure and Activities: Relating IT to the Work of Nonprofit Organizations, by Richard Clerkin and Kirsten A. Grønbjerg. Paper presented at Symposium on Nonprofit Technology Adoption, University of San Francisco, Institute for Nonprofit Organization Management. October Forthcoming in conference volume. Nonprofit Advocacy Organizations: Their Characteristics and Activities, by Curtis Child and Kirsten A. Grønbjerg. Paper presented at the Biannual Conference of the International Society for Third-Sector Research, Toronto, Canada, July 11-14, Indiana Nonprofit Employment Analysis An analysis, comparing ES202 employment reports with IRS registered nonprofits under all sub-sections of 501(c), using a methodology developed by the Center for Civil Society Studies at The Johns Hopkins University, to examine nonprofit employment in the state of Indiana for 2001 with comparisons to 2000 and The analysis includes detailed information by county, region, and type of nonprofit as well as industry and sector comparisons. Online Reports Economic Region Nonprofit Employment: 2005 Report. Nonprofit Employment Series No. 2A by Kirsten Grønbjerg and Erich T. Eschmann with Kerry Brock. December 2005 ( Indiana Nonprofit Employment, 2005 Report. Nonprofit Employment Report No. 2 by Kirsten Grønbjerg and Erich T. Eschmann. May 2005 ( Indiana Nonprofit Employment, Nonprofit Employment Report No. 1 by Kirsten Grønbjerg and Hun Myoung Park. July 2003 ( Nonprofit Employment, Nonprofit Employment Report No. 1, Supplement A, by Kirsten Grønbjerg and Sharon Kioko. August 2003 ( 22

26 Personal Affiliation Survey Analysis We completed a survey of 526 Indiana residents in May 2001, designed to make it possible to evaluate the utility of an alternative approach to sampling Indiana nonprofits (as compared to drawing a sample from a comprehensive nonprofit database). The survey probed for the respondents personal affiliations with Indiana nonprofits as employees, worshippers, volunteers, or participants in association meetings or events during the previous 12 months. We recorded the names and addresses of the church the respondent had attended most recently, of up to two nonprofit employers, up to five nonprofits for which the respondent had volunteered, and up to five nonprofit associations. Journal Articles and Conference Presentations The Role of Religious Networks and Other Factors in Different Types of Volunteer Work, by Kirsten Grønbjerg and Brent Never. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 14 (Winter 2004, No. 3): Individual Engagement with Nonprofits: Explaining Participation in Association Meetings and Events, by Kirsten Grønbjerg. Paper presented at the ARNOVA Meetings, Montreal, Canada, November 14-16, Volunteering for Nonprofits: The Role of Religious Engagement, by Kirsten Grønbjerg and Brent Never. Paper presented at the Association for the Study of Religion. Chicago, August 14-16, Indiana Nonprofit Database Analysis We developed a comprehensive database of 59,400 Indiana nonprofits of all types (congregations, other charities, advocacy nonprofits, and mutual benefit associations) using a unique methodology that combines a variety of data sources, most notably the IRS listing of tax-exempt entities, the Indiana Secretary of State s listing of incorporated nonprofits, and the yellow page listing of congregations. We supplemented these listings with a variety of local listings in eleven communities across the state and with nonprofits identified through a survey of Indiana residents about their personal affiliations with nonprofits. The database is available in a searchable format through a link at Journal Articles and Conference Presentations Extent and Nature of Overlap between Listings of IRS Tax-Exempt Registrations and Nonprofit Incorporation: The Case of Indiana, by Kirsten Grønbjerg and Laurie Paarlberg. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 31 (No. 4, December, 2002): Evaluating Nonprofit Databases. American Behavioral Scientist 45 (July, 2002, No. 10): Resources for Scholarship in the Nonprofit Sector: Studies in the Political Economy of Information, Part I: Data on Nonprofit Industries. Community Variations in the Size and Composition of the Nonprofit Sector: The Case of Indiana by Kirsten Grønbjerg and Laurie Paarlberg. Paper presented at the Small Cities Conference, Muncie, IN, September 14-15, Community Variations in the Size and Scope of the Nonprofit Sector: Theory and Preliminary Findings, by Kirsten A. Grønbjerg and Laurie Paarlberg. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 30 (No. 4, December, 2001)

27 24